>Axes were never used in combat, unless you consider a tree a worthy opponent haha. Swords? The most popular last resort weapon in history, not used as often as people think though. Spears, now this is where it's at, the most effective weapon to have ever existed. I mean, you can poke people with it!
Why do people take this guy seriously?
Spears and pikes were pretty much the most important melee weapons, though.
Spears where the most commonly used weapon in history. Swords are considered to be the most commonly used by the general population however this isn't true. axes, whilst used they where not a common weapon by any means nor where they particularly effective.
I was under the impression that spears weren't exactly the most effective weapon, just more cost-effective and easier to mass produce.
the nordic sagas do love to go on and on about heroes with superior spearmanship though
Dudes a faggot.
They work well in large groups where everyone is covering each other and there aren't a lot of easy ways to hit the enemy without getting speared.
Range is everything. Why do you think firearms replaced melee weapons? In addition to being cheaper and longer than other tools, spears also countered cavalry charges. They're just plain better.
I remember someone bringing up the fact that spears were actually frequently used not for pointy pointy, but for hitting people in the head hard enough to kill or knock them unconscious (presumably to be stabbed a little while later). But I lost the sources and illustrations he posted. I just remember a scene from a Japanese medieval war movie, apparently based on real records, which showed that kind of spear use between infantry.
Spearwalls work against infantry and head-on cavalry, there's no denying that.
>Why do you think firearms replaced melee weapons
Because you only need to train a peasant for a few weeks rather than a few months for them to be competent with a musket.
Although spears in a formation do have the same benefit so point still stands.
Probably the most retarded theory I've ever heard.
Thats coming from a guy who has seen all of lindybeige's videos.
>herr durr lets whack the guy with the stick instead of stabbing him with the pointy bit
Its not hat stupid when you consider the fact the other guys are wearing armor over most of their vulnerable parts, spearmen were often poorly trained, and our natural inclination as humans is to smash rather than thrust.
>when you consider the fact the other guys are wearing armor over most of their vulnerable parts
during what time period?
what type of soldiers?
Throughout most of the history of the spear, targets were either unarmored or lightly armored.
Why the fuck would you use a spear in the first place if it didnt work as a fucking spear?
Why not use a polaxe or a war hammer?
It really, really is stupid. No one goes into battle with a spear expecting to have to use it as a club. They would bring something better suited for use as a club.
Fucking think before you post you fucking baboon.
we were talking about the japanese so,
if it was fucking stupid why was it used? its not that the thrust was not used, its just the spear would often be slammed downward at the start of combat
Absolutely fucking not. Give me a source saying that anyone ever expected to use a spear in that fashion in a battle. I can see under desperation hitting someone who got past your point or in a frenzy, but never would someone expect to use a spear like that in an actual battle.
>Give me a source saying that anyone ever expected to use a spear in that fashion in a battle.
Zatsuhyou Monogatari
Swords are expensive to make, while spears are cheap and you didn't need a whole lot of training to use one.
If you were a pre-gunpowder soldier, what would you prefer? A weapon that kept the enemy away from you and let you strike from a distance or a weapon that required near face-to-face combat?
>gives a name
>not a source
Are you fucking stupid?
I was really hoping you guys would discuss his battle fatigue video
The point about murder/violence being at odds with societal expectation was an interesting one but is it really the case that we are so different now? Surely murder has always been taboo
Are you fucking new?
So that's how you'd source something? Did you ever write a paper using something other than Wikipedia?
How about you give me the fucking source? Not just who wrote it, but where it is written and (if you're feeling generous) where to find it. Ffs
No him but Jesus man, we're not going to spoon-feed you. He gave a name, go find the damn thing yourself. You're not a child and this isn't grade school where we require perfect MLA citations.
Veeky Forums really is shit then if you give someone a fucking name and expect them to find the obscure reference to using a spear like a club. He's the one trying to prove his retarded claim, not me.
Geez, someone's projecting a bit of their frustration out. You fucking donkey.
Why the fuck would you run at a spear line?
No. Just no. Spears were mostly used in huge formations you didn't have space to swing with them although YES you can do it and it kinda works even if it's not very effective use of spear.
Its quite true actully. Why, given the right circumstances we could have a warrior based generation in as little as two generations if so demanded.
Our first hurdal is easy to overcome alredy: desensatising the masses to violence. However i feel these days it is deployed as a means of control via apathy/depression. showing violence without resolve tends to leave a void you see. If you spin it to have a point/role rather than demonize its usage, it can make a majority of well adjusted, casual killers out of most men (and some women, but women killing is more traditionally subversive, like assasination rather than total war.)
I could elaborate as to how to create the best conditions to make a 'warrior society' if your wary of my points so far?
And you're the one who's autism flared up and started shit for no reason. Literally your first reply was saying something's retarded and greentexting some /b/ tier garbage. You then proceeded insult him and call him a baboon in the next reply.
>Veeky Forums really is shit then
Oh okay, so you ARE new. Well in that case, please go back to /b/ where you belong. Here, I'll help.
>you didn't have space to swing with them
>Up and down aren't options
>Hitting someone with a spear
That's like trying to stab with an axe, also they would be wearing armor, unless it's the celts, so it would have little to no affect on them.
Also >using movies as sources
You won't get full swing if there's somebody behind you though.
>Battle axes were very common in Europe in the Migration Period and the subsequent Viking Age, and they famously figure on the 11th-century Bayeaux Tapestry, which depicts Norman mounted knights pitted against Anglo-Saxon infantrymen. They continued to be employed throughout the rest of the Middle Ages, with significant combatants being noted axe wielders in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries.
>King Stephen of England famously used a Danish axe at the Battle of Lincoln 1141. One account says after his sword broke,[3] another says he used his sword only after his axe broke.[4]
>King Robert I of Scotland used an axe to defeat Henry de Bohun in single combat at the start of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, and they enjoyed a sustained revival in use among heavily armored equestrian combatants in the 15th century. Given that Bruce was wielding the axe on horseback, it is likely that the weapon in this case was a one handed horseman's axe.
>In the 14th. century, the use of axes is increasingly noted by Froissart in his Chronicle,[8] which records the engagements between the kingdoms of France and England and the rise of professional (and mercenary) armies in the 14th century. King John II is recorded as using one at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 and Sir James Douglas at the Battle of Otterburn in 1388. Bretons were apparently noted axe users, with noted mercenaries Bertrand du Guesclin and Olivier de Clisson both wielding axes in battle.[9] In these instances the type of battle axe - whether a Danish axe, or the proto-pollaxe - is not recorded.
>That's like trying to stab with an axe,
More like bludgeoning with an axe, which isn't unreasonable
>also they would be wearing armor, unless it's the celts, so it would have little to no affect on them.
I imagine that's when you'd use it, the armor work make it harder to actually stab and you'd end up glancing or grazing the head instead. Also, hitting someone in the head with armor is still plenty effective.
Fair enough, but if the pole is that long you don't need much lead up, or if you're in formation I doubt you'll be in a position or have the need to whack any single person.
I find it hard to believe people are this delusional, swords take a lot of effort to make, no one would have made them if they weren't also very effective.
>Hitting someone in the head with armor is still plenty effective
That's why most helmets are curved at the top, to prevent that from happening
Why on earth would you come in straight down? You come in at a downward angle or from the side.
>axes, whilst used they where not a common weapon by any means nor where they particularly effective.
You do realize that not everywhere, not even in Europe, had the typical soldier wearing heavy armor right? Throughout the majority of history the majority of people fighting would be royally fucked with a well landed axe blow.
And then the enemy manages to get close, and you're fucked
>mainlesson.com
" Cheer after cheer rose from the Scottish ranks, and the generals gathered round their King. They were glad that he was safe, yet vexed that he should so have endangered [175] his life. "Bethink you, sire, the fate of all Scotland rests upon you," they said.
But the King answered them never a word. "I have broken my good axe," was all he said, "I have broken my good axe."
"
you do realize the issue IS landing it, much less effectively.
its almost like it was actually made for cutting down trees but you could use that tool for other, albeit less effective, uses.
but i must be crazy.
Axes will be used much more in the future
Because your shitty commander told your illiterate ass to do so. Now charge.
Based Lindybeige
wiki pic
I think you people never held something resembling a spear and have no idea how long and heavy they were. Heavy things hitting you in the head = effective.
also
>muh armor
Armor doesn't protect you against concussion and very few people if any could pierce steel at the maximum distance spears were used anyway.
They weren't making full swings you idiot. How the fuck are you going to make a full swing with a gigantic 3 meter long pole and hit anything with it anyway?
>Throughout most of the history of the spear, targets were either unarmored or lightly armored.
Samurai armor was not light armor. End this meme.
>Why the fuck would you use a spear in the first place if it didnt work as a fucking spear?
>Why not use a polaxe or a war hammer?
Because they could still use it as spears anyway as there were more exposed places when compared to Western plate armor, and some combatants wore less armor. Also spears can counter cavalry; polacks and hammers cannot do that. And guess what, cavalry was a big thing for most of Japan's military history.
Being this much of an armchair weapon expert, top lel.
>get shot by laser
>no effect
>get merely grazed by axe
>bleed profusely while spilling your guts out
I had a pic of an Imperial getting slashed titled "armor save 6+" but I lost it.
He has an over inflated sense of self importance from his youtube channel. Which causes him to spew opinions around like a fool.
A tight roman formation particularly with the gladius hispaniensis, performed quite well against Macedon phalanx's. With the right tactics and quick manoeuvring
>Axes were never used in combat
lol wat
Only in single combat, a sword is absolutely superior there, but the strength of the spear is that your companions to your right or left can stab the opponent you're facing.
Romans did this too, a soldier would straight on attack his forward facing opponent, he would push his shield towards up and stab the opponent to the right which isn't well guarded against an attack coming from that area because he's most likely (if he's using a shield at all) holding the shield in his left hand and is therefore exposed
Two people just standing still facing each other can easily deflect each other's blows, especially with a shield and the battle goes nowhere. An attack always comes from the side
wouldn't straight on attack*
You'll find that people are a lot more willing to give you what you want if you aren't a cunt about it user.
It provides an opportunity for schenkopp to be badass
Because we are talking about massive medieval battles. Not your fantasy 1vs1 duels. Try charging into a spear wall with a sword and see what happends.
Also, pikes were pretty much the only inf melee weapon used in gunpowder era.
>Also spears can counter cavalry; polacks and hammers cannot do that.
Poles cannot into anti-cavalry
>Armor doesn't protect you against concussion
What? Yes it does. I've taken more than a few blows to the head in my helmet. elbows to the forehead won't even interrupt a conversation, and my helmet isn't even suspended off my head.
>Samurai armor was not light armor.
No, it just has a profusion of gaps, or linkages made of butted chain that a spear can readily defeat.
>And guess what, cavalry was a big thing for most of Japan's military history.
Shock cavalry that actually got stuck in wasn't. They were late to the heavy cavalry game by MILLENNIA.
Swords also lose in single combat.
>I've taken more than a few blows to the head in my helmet
Is that right? What war was this in?
>No, it just has a profusion of gaps, or linkages made of butted chain that a spear can readily defeat.
Sure. And of course you experienced this first hand when they sent you to fight against them.
>No, it just has a profusion of gaps, or linkages made of butted chain that a spear can readily defeat.
Sure they were.
Came here to post this example about Robert the Bruce actually.
>Two people just standing still facing each other can easily deflect each other's blows, especially with a shield and the battle goes nowhere
Seems like those people never heard of getting gud.
>Why do you think firearms replaced melee weapons?
they didn't. They replaced crossbows.
Melee weapons just fell out of favor after WW1.
The japs do strike people with their shafts, don't let the illiterate retards tell you otherwise.
They think it's a horizontal swing, when it's in fact a vertical overhead smashing motion in unison.
Any polearm is vastly superior to a sword. The sword is a defensive sidearm.
Absolutely... the spear is essentially a quarterstaff with an effective point. It can deliver waay more blunt force than any sword, because swords have their center of weight biased to the grip.
this is untrue in the absolute sense it's author would like to project.
The sword is not exclusively defensive or an exclusive sidearm much less an exclusive marriage of these two, but can excel in both those roles and others.
"Any polearm" is vague bullshit cause some of them are four feet long like the short spear and others are 18 feet like the pike.
tldr stop being retarded
>swords have their center of weight biased to the grip
omg
What? Yes it does. I've taken more than a few blows to the head in my helmet.
have you even been hit by a baseball bat in your helmet? how about a bo or quarter staff? your talking about a twenty foot hard wood pole crashing down on your head.
well yeah it hurts and you're dazed/punchdrunk but aren't you glad you had your helmet on?
>Swords also lose in single combat.
Maybe in your FEMA bullshit non-combat.
Given the fact that even a sword can split a steel helmet given a stable base and a clean shot, a hard staff would likely knock out or kill someone wearing the lighter ashigaru helmet.
and even if it didn't, your not going to be a very good spear fighter if your punch drunk.
the fact is a spear is not only used to thrust, despite that being its main function. It can slash, can smash, it can be reversed, there are even styles that entangle it with the enemy and throw them using leverage.
as opposed to what?
>no "my dick is so fucking hard right now" panel
trash
this isnt coming from a historical pov but more of a practical one
maybe if a shield is in use, it is harder and stupider to bring it to the top of your head as opposed to the sides, so a strike from above would mean it would be perhaps more predictable but also more difficult for you, who is getting hit
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FUCKING HOLLYWOOD SHITS
THESE PATCHES OF GRASS ARE ALL WRONG REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Well post it if you have it son
nice strawman
>Sure they were.
Are you retarded? Japanese mail was unrivted, instead bing closed in am manner akin to a key ring.
>Sure. And of course you experienced this first hand when they sent you to fight against them.
Or you can look at that gaps present in the many, many examples of said armor, and the tests showing spear defeating tougher riveted mail when used with two hands.
The yari stayed the mainstay of Japanese close combat rather than being replaced with special anti-armor weapon for a reason.
Maybe in your FEMA bullshit non-combat.
Or in the mindsof every european who wrote on the issue, as well as modern hema practicioners.
The spear is faster, has more reach, and better leverage. If you are not wearing armor, the spear will shit all over the sword in most situations.
Unless the helmet has a flat top, the blow will likely glance off. Even if it doesn't-the helmet will either be suspended off your head, or be sitting on a padded arming cap.
I would not want to take a "glancing blow" from a spear shaft.
regardless of how effective you think it is, there is at least one reference to it in a book made shortly after the end of the sengoku. It is resonalble then to assume it happened, considering smashing techniques were common in Japanese staff fighting,. IN fact you can see such a strike in a surviving lineage of Japanese spear fighting.
here at around 3:20
youtube.com
There you see a smash to the head performed with the shaft.
they had gaps though you could also get steel under armor of chain mail or steel plates
> Hurr hurr hurr lets fucking club them instead of stabbing them with our stabbing stick
Does it hurt to be this retarded?
I wouldn't want to be shot in my Kevlar either, but that doesn't mean the Kevlar doesn't work.
I have no doubt an overhead blow from a spear could do considerable harm I also have no doubt that that was not, at any point in time, the primary method of using them. Were this able to readily defeat helmets people simply wouldn't wear them into the meele. Helmets are irritating at the best of times.
This also simply ignore that, in japans case, the ahsigaru are near universally wearing open faced helmets, no neck guards, and have no shield.
Just stab or cut him. It's faster and doesn't leave you so terribly exposed.
most wounds were from projectiles, not being able to stop a twenty foot pole does not mean it would not provide adequate protection from arrows.
Your Kevlar example fits here, since it will protect pretty well against hand guns but is not that great against rifle rounds
I am just arguing it was used, not that it was the primary tactic, you have to admit that there are sources for it at the very least.
It's very possible, and often effective, to stab with an axe. Most axes have a point of some form that you can put a lot of force into, and a thrust is quicker than a swing with an axe.
His biases are comical.
>its almost like it was actually made for cutting down trees
>I've never heard of specialty axes or 1 handed cavalry axes
See you actual fucking retard
Based LARPer telling the truth. Fuck you buttblasted swordfags and axebabies.
You still didn't tell us what in what war you received blows to your helmet.
You must be an American because only they are retarded enough to believe something like this.
>spear is faster
>dodge spear point
>grab shaft
>spear is now useless
RIP in piece
>still disregarding the counterpoints made in the thread without any argument
good show
>spearmen were often poorly trained
woah greek hoplites, persian troops, samurai and knights were so poorly trained
dumb fuck kill yourself
>Shock cavalry that actually got stuck in wasn't. They were late to the heavy cavalry game by MILLENNIA.
Yeah because they were all light cavalry duel archers before that :^)
In relation to Japanese warfare, yes ashigaru were poorly trained compared to samurai who would have learn the basics of weapons from childhood.
No one mentioned fucking Japan when you made that retarded post so stop goalposting.
are you stupid? we were talking about this post
Congratulations. You now have one hand on an object the opther guy is holding in twom, granting you little control over it.
There's also the issue of trying to dodge it in the first place, given that the spear can change target from your head to your feet faster than your eyes can track, and that the spearman can choke up far faster than you can run.
youtube.com
You're retarded. Stop arguing about things you don't understand.
In japan? No. they were horse archers ranging from light to heavy, but spent their time shooting, not charging home and engaging in shock attacks.
They didn't start to seriously shift toward heavy cavalry until the fucking 1400s.
>yes ashigaru were poorly trained compared to samurai
You're aware they essentially ended up becoming a social class of professional soldiers, right?
yes, yes I am, if you want to go into the late period, some were professionals, others were a rabble. But it was like that in many armies throughout history.
Movies are a great source just look at this doccumentary
There actually is a Japanese source that refers to this tactic
>given that the spear can change target from your head to your feet faster than your eyes can track
>spears hit without penetration, which means that they have 0 recovery time
>spears can change target in midair and still deal noteworthy damage (just like how you can make lightning fast cuts with swords towards any direction you want and still cut people in half)
>HEMA videos based on the experience of amateurs who are trying to recreate a style of fighting by reading manuscripts are historical evidence
>You don't understand things whereas I do because I read a lot of HEMA shit from my basement
Is that legend of the galactic heroes?